Mumbai Court July 2001 Judgments

M/S Fixwell Indl. Engineers Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. This is an appeal against the order dated 30.1.1996 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai, made in Order-in-Appeal No. NK (1464) 33/96 whereunder he denied the modvat credit claimed by the assessee on the basis of gate pass which was issued before 1.4.1994 but endorsed after 1.4.1994 and where the credit was taken in May, 1994.2. The issue is not res integra. Several judgments of the Tribunal has held in favour of the assessee one of which is Camlin Ltd. vs. CCE, Mumbai-I 2000 (91) ECR 630. In view of the above judgment, I set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal and hold that modvat credit of Rs. 6,735.80 be allowed, ordering consequential relief. The above order has been passed after hearing Shri Borade, learned JDR, who reiterated the impugned order....

M/S. Fibre Foils Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Cen. Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

It is stated by Shri Patil that the appellants have already settled and paid the amount under Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme Rule, 1998. He placed before us the photo copy of the order passed by the Commissioner in this regard. In view of the above, the appeal abates and is dismissed as such....

M/S. Indian Strips and Others Vs. Commissioner of Cen. Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The above applications for waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery arise out of the common adjudication order and are hence heard together and disposed of by this common order.2. Details of the duty confirmed and penalty imposed against each applicant are as under:-Applicant's name Duty PenaltyM/s. Indian Strips Rs.1,37,99,527 Rs.1,38,87,791Shehsmal Hiralal Shah Rs. 12,00,000Dhanlaxmi Metals Pvt.Ltd. Rs. 2,00,000Bhoomika Strips Pvt. Ltd. Rs. 2,00,000Jignesh Shah Rs. 15,00,000Bhagyodaya Metals Pvt.Ltd. Rs. 2,00,000Navkar Metals Pvt.Ltd. Rs. 2,00,000 3. Duty has been demanded and penalty imposed on the finding of the Commissioner that reduction of gauge of hot rolled S.S.Pattas by cold rolling process amounts to manufacture. The contention of the applicants' counsel is that the process of cold rolling was undertaken only for the purpose of reduction of thickness of the gauge of hot rolled S.S.Pattas. He submits, in cases involving identical issue the Bench has already been pleased...

M/S. Bhor Industries Vs. Commissioner of Cen.Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(148)ELT1177Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appellants herein purchased PVC resin falling under Heading 39.04 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. PVC file/sheet are manufactured by using such resin. Some quantity of PVC film is captively consumed within the factory for manufacturing laminated cotton fabrics. PVC film captively consumed within the factory is eligible for exemption under Notification No.271/86. However, the assessee did not avail of the benefit of this Notification but paid excise duty applicable PVC film and duty so paid was taken as modvat credit and utilised for payment of duty on the final product viz.laminated fabrics falling under Chapter heading 59.03. The duty paid on PVC resin purchased from the market was taken as modvat credit and utilised for payment of duty on PVC film. Modvat declaration was filed showing PVC resin as input and PVC film as final product. Another modvat declaration was filed indicating PVC film as input and laminated fabrics as final product. Notification No.10/89(NT) was ...

Plasstichemix Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(148)ELT1098Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The question for consideration in this appeal is whether the appellant was entitled to modvat credit of the duty paid on the plastic bags it received for packing masterbatches that it manufactured. The counsel for the appellant does not deny that it cannot have a claim for modvat credit of the duty paid on high density polyethylene woven sacks; these are specifically excluded and the benefit of the credit under Clause (vi) of the Explanation below Rule 57A (1). However, he contends that this clause does not exclude the bags, which were not the such woven bags that the appellant used as a liner for the woven sacks.The commissioner (Appeals) has confirmed the Assistant Collector's order denying the credit on the ground that the appellant did not substantiate the claim either before the Assistant Collector or before him.2. On asking, the counsel for the appellant, for some evidence to at least demonstrate prima facie that in support of his claim, he has no evidence. He cites gate pass...

Remi Metals Gujarat Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Cen. Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2000)LC115Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Total modvat credit of Rs. 29,79,672/- has been denied on he following items on the ground that they do not satisfy the definition of capital goods as per the meaning assigned to capital goods under Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules: In addition, a penalty of Rs. 50,000/- has been imposed in terms of Rule 173 Q(1) of Central Excise Rules, 1944. The period involved is two months of September and October, 1992.2. We have heard both sides. Our findings on the eligibility of the above mentioned items of modvat credit benefit are as under:- 1. Transformers :- Two types of Transformers are involved, one is the furnace duty transformer which is integral part of electric furnace and the second is used in sub-station for stepping down the electricity received from GEB to the required voltages from where the distribution of electricity takes place to individual point of use through insulted cables. This item is clearly eligible to credit as held by the Tribunal in series of decisions. Som...

Mohd. Rahim Haji Vs. Commissioner of Customs,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. There is no proof of compliance with the requirement of pre-deposit of Rs. 20,000/- as per Stay Order No. CI/1382/WZB/2001 dated 9.5.2001.Hence, we dismiss the appeal for non compliance with statutory requirement of Sec. 129E of the Custom Act, 1962....

Rajesh Hansraj Chopra Vs. the Competent Authority and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2002BomCR(Cri)96; (2001)4BOMLR144; 2002(79)ECC776

1. This Writ Petition is directed against the Show Cause Notice dated 7.9.2000, Annexure B, issued by the Competent Authority, SAFEMA/ N.D.P.S., Bombay against the Petitioner under section 6(1) of the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 (hereinafter called the Act). The said Notice was issued by the Competent Authority on behalf of the Government of India. Ministry of Finance. It recited that a Detention Order under COFPOSA was passed against the petitioner on 22.3.1999 by the Government of Maharashtra. Home Department and it was revoked under section 21 of the General Clauses Act by the Principal Secretary to Government of Maharashtra on 8.9.1999 and the said revocation has no effect on the proceedings under the SAFEMA. It calls upon the petitioner to show cause why the property mentioned therein should not be forfeited.2. The learned counsel for the Petitioner Mr. Maqsood Khan has challenged this Notice as it suffers from the vice of lack of...

Suresh Marutrao Jadhav Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2002(5)BomCR347; (2001)4BOMLR897

B. P. Singh, C. J. 1. The sole question, which arises for consideration in this revision application, is : Whether, to an application made to the Collector under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for a reference to the Court, the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963 will apply? The answer to this question depends on whether the Collector, while making, or refusing to make, a reference under Section 18(1) of the Act, acts as a Court, and not as a mere Statutory Authority. Having regard to the weight of authorities on this question, it cannot be disputed that the Collector, acting under Section 18 of the Act, is not a Court, but the question arises for consideration in view of an amendment of Section 18 of the Act by Maharashtra Act No. XXXVIII of 1964, whereby Sub-section (3) of Section 18 has been added. The moot question, therefore, is as to whether the provision of Sub-section (3) makes any difference.2. The facts of the case may be...

Virendra Madhukarrao Gumphawar Vs. Nagpur University, Nagpur

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001(4)ALLMR603; 2002(1)BomCR317; 2002(1)MhLj943

R.M. Lodha, J. 1. Heard Shri Haq, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Kulkami, the learned counsel for the respondent. 2. The petitioner appeared in M. A. Part I (English) Examination conducted by the respondent University in the year 1999. He was declared pass in the said examination. The grievance of the petitioner is that the marks awarded to him in three subjects, viz. (i) Chaucer to Milton, (ii) Elizabethan and Jacobean Drama and (iii) The Victorian Age, were on lower side and that there was some error in evaluation in the aforesaid three papers and, therefore, he intended to apply for revaluation in the aforesaid three papers but the respondent University, in view of Ordinance No. 159 (Amended), told the petitioner that he was entitled to seek revaluation in only one paper. Faced with this situation, the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging Ordinance No. 159 to the effect it provides for revaluation in only one head of passing of the stud...